MUHAMMAD SHOAIB vs THE STATE and another
This bail petition arises from a criminal matter where the accused-petitioner, Muhammad Shoaib, sought post-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 172 of 2008, registered at Police Station Yarik, District D.I. Khan, for offences under sections 302, 201, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps and the nature of the prosecution's case. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The Court observed that the initial report did not nominate any accused, and the subsequent supplementary statement, recorded after a significant delay, lacked credibility and failed to provide a plausible explanation for the delay. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of ocular evidence connecting the petitioner to the crime and the failure of the prosecution to recover any incriminating material from the petitioner during police custody. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, emphasizing that the prosecution's case, as presented in the supplementary statement, appeared prima facie unbelievable and insufficient to justify continued incarceration.
- Does a significant, unexplained delay in recording a supplementary statement that nominates an accused undermine the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail?
- Is the absence of ocular evidence connecting an accused to the offence a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution fails to recover incriminating evidence from the accused during police custody?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
'ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.--- Accused-petitioner Muhammad Shoaib has applied for bail after failing to avail it from the lower fora. He is charged under sections 302/201, 109/148/149, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,172 dated 9-8-2008 of Police Station Yarik, District D.I. Khan.
2. According to the report of Ghulam Abbas complainant, he had reported about the missing of one Mashal Khan on the morning of 9-8-2009. Later on his son informed him about some blood- stained earth on the spot. He along with his son went there and the blood-stained spots led them to a place where a human body was buried and one of his hand was outside it. Later on police was informed and on their arrival, the dead body was dug out and it was found to be that of Mashal Khan.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. In the report, nobody has been charged. It is also expressed by the complainant that he has no enmity with anyone. Later on, in the supplementary statement the complainant charged the accused. The record reveals that there is no ocular evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence. The occurrence took place between the night of 6/7-8-2008 and it is on 10-8-2008 when the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded in which the accused has been nominated and the motive also given. This statement is not believable because in the earlier report, no motive has been given by the complainant. Moreover, the petitioner, Muhammad Shoaib is in Jail for sufficient A time. The story narrated in the supplementary statement prima facie is not believable. The delay in recording the supplementary statement is not fully explained. In spite of remaining in police custody, nothing incriminating has been recovered from the petitioner nor he has made any confession.
5. For the above reasons, this petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate.